Cleansing & cha...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring  

Page 3 / 7
  RSS

the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/10/2012 5:26 pm  

93!

And if you really don't get that the "phenomenon" of which I speak is not any "practical, detectable difference" of the ring, then ... well, then you just don't get it. Think harder. Oh, I forgot: it's a known fact that "occultists" charge rings to create a "practical, detectable difference" in the ring. What else could it be good for?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
11/10/2012 5:59 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
What else could it be good for?

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what the practical value of having a "charged ring" is? And then tell us how you determine whether or not it's doing what it's supposed to do? (whether it's finding treasure, or obtaining hidden knowledge into the "arts".)

And while your at it, please also explain how taking the time to charge a ring is a superior task to finding a mundane and reliable way to accomplish your goals?

Bonus question: What exactly do you think is doing the charging of the ring?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/10/2012 6:30 pm  

MoogPlayer, 93!

Usually I only accept Los' and Erwin's arrogant and condescending tone (I am used to it and I like the way they articulate, even when arrogant and condescending), so I don't know why I should answer your very first reply to me when it comes in such a tone. Anyway, I already said that nothing can destroy my high spirits these days, so I'll answer you: I never claimed that I know anything about ring charging or that I charge rings to accomplish anything. I was speaking of "phenomena" and "a working hypothesis" in science. You can go on and sing "But the ring doesn't physically change!" in three voices until you're blue in the face and I will applaud and happily not disagree.

Bonus answer: Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ingenuousness and the mass of your preconceptions about "occultists". You super-scientists...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 7:10 pm  

Instead of bickering with pre-suppositions and speculation, why not direct this thread toward the available science of the matter?

Some ideas to play with:

Human Aura (Bio-Electric Energy Field)
An Ultra-Low-Power Human Body Motion Sensor Using Static Electric Field Sensing (Ubicomp 2012)
Human body as a communication medium : DigInfo
The Electric Field Due to a Ring of Charge

Georges Lakhovsky, Bioelectric Pioneer: "He postulated that all living cells (plants, people, bacteria, parasites, etc.) possess attributes which normally are associated with electronic circuits. These cellular attributes include resistance, capacitance, and inductance. [Sattva, Rajas, and Tams, anyone? Mercury, Sulphur, Salt?] These 3 electrical properties, when properly configured, will cause the recurrent generation or oscillation of high frequency sine waves when sustained by a small, steady supply of outside energy of the right frequency. This effect is known as resonance. It's easiest to compare it with a child swinging on a playground swing. As long as the parent pushes the swing a little at the right moment (the correct 'frequency'), the child will continue to swing high and continuously.  In electronics, circuits which generate these recurrent sine waves can be called electromagnetic resonators, but more commonly they are referred to as oscillators. Lakhovsky tells us that not only do all living cells produce and radiate oscillations of very high frequencies, but they also receive and respond to oscillations imposed upon them from outside sources. This outside source of radiation or oscillations are due to cosmic rays which bombard the earth continuously."

If you don't "like" any of these, or think they aren't credible for any reason, feel free to post some.

Disclaimer on the links: Some of the links will present information on "self healing" and other such things, which is not the concern of this thread. Find the science, leave the rest. Work together, and see what can actually be accomplished.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 7:57 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

You still haven't given me an example of what you're talking about here. I'm not asking you to "discuss probabilities" or anything like that. You made this claim, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. I can't even picture what you're talking about, which is why I'm asking you for clarification. How, exactly, would a skeptical approach (that is, not accepting claims until there's sufficient evidence for them) make a person "gullible"? Can you give a few examples of what you're talking about?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
11/10/2012 7:57 pm  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Why don't you go ahead and tell us what the practical value of having a "charged ring" is? And then tell us how you determine whether or not it's doing what it's supposed to do? (whether it's finding treasure, or obtaining hidden knowledge into the "arts".)

And while your at it, please also explain how taking the time to charge a ring is a superior task to finding a mundane and reliable way to accomplish your goals?

Bonus question: What exactly do you think is doing the charging of the ring?

MoogPlayer,

Given that Lutz has never championed ring-charging - as even the most cursory glance at the posts thus far in the thread makes apparent - why do you address these questions to him?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 7:59 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And if you really don't get that the "phenomenon" of which I speak is not any "practical, detectable difference" of the ring

So, if it's not a "practical, detectable difference," how would a person know that the ring is actually charged? In other words, how would a person tell that this "phenomenon" is actually a phenomenon and not make believe.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4949
11/10/2012 7:59 pm  

"Surrounding and interpenetrating the body, a band of colored light begins. It extends about 18" from the skin. This is the astral aura, which is also called the emotional body. The cloudlike colors change constantly in relation to alterations in mood or one’s emotional state.
The colors are generally bright, moving, and are often bewildering. Practitioners have counted up to 56 different interwoven colors dancing around at one time in this field.
This energy field (and all the others) is often easily seen at the side of a person. But it really is an egg-shape, and it penetrates through the dense physical and etheric bodies, and it radiates in all directions.
When people ask, “What color is my aura?” they are usually (unknowingly) referring to this emotional body, and this is the field that is supposedly “captured” by an Aura Camera."

"An “aura camera” is a normal Polaroid camera with a series of movable, colored filters. The photographer (who is theoretically clairvoyant) looks at the subject’s astral aura and then mechanically swings the corresponding colored filter(s) in front of the lens so that the client ends up with a photo that has one or more superimposed cloudlike colors for which they pay $5 to $20 and get all excited. This is not Kirlian photography, and it is not even electrophotography. It is a mechanical process that is often called “Kirlian,” but is actually a form of stage magic and false advertising. This procedure has graduated into a video format, where the “aura’ is generated by a computer. Neither of these methods deliver a direct image of one’s energy field – this technology does not yet exist, except for the original Kirlian procedure that captures a direct image of the etheric frequency range."

- Quotes lifted from Treatise On Naught, Appendix VII (c)2012[/align:20lzjez4]

Here's a pic of a Kirlian photo:

[/align:20lzjez4]

Before (charging) and After (charging) photographs would tell us if any change has taken place in the etheric frequency range of something (like a ring).

Before and After pics are commonly (enough) used in relation to human fields and treatments with acupuncture or Qi Gong.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 8:01 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Given that Lutz has never championed ring-charging - as even the most cursory glance at the posts thus far in the thread makes apparent - why do you address these questions to him?

It's probably because Lutz seemed to be advocating the position that a "charged" ring doesn't differ from an uncharged ring in any detectable way -- which suggests that Lutz knows something about this subject in order to make claims like that -- and which directly leads to the obvious question: then why should any person think the ring is actually charged at all?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 8:17 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Before (charging) and After (charging) photographs would tell us if any change has taken place in the etheric frequency range of something (like a ring).

Now here's somebody who claims that there is a detectable difference between a charged and uncharged ring. Somebody had better tell Lutz.

But, anyway, it seems that this "Kirlian photography" actually is picking up natural phenomena, including pressure, electrical grounding, humidity, and temperature. If we could get some experts to set up a controlled space (where all of those natural forces could be regulated), we could put several rings side-by-side and take a Kirlian picture of all of them. Then get someone to "charge" the center ring and take a new picture, demonstrating that the center ring, and only the center ring, now has a charge.

If someone could actually do this under controlled conditions, Randi would give them a million dollars for sure. Not to mention the international fame they would receive. And the Nobel prize. And offers to participate in a bazillion research projects, with the money that comes with that.

But nobody's ever done that....hmmm....why do you think that might be....?


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
11/10/2012 8:21 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
[...]Los' and Erwin's arrogant and condescending tone[...]

Number 34:

"You present facts in an arrogant and condescending tone.  Therefore magick works."


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
11/10/2012 8:33 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

You still haven't given me an example of what you're talking about here. I'm not asking you to "discuss probabilities" or anything like that. You made this claim, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. I can't even picture what you're talking about, which is why I'm asking you for clarification. How, exactly, would a skeptical approach (that is, not accepting claims until there's sufficient evidence for them) make a person "gullible"? Can you give a few examples of what you're talking about?

I think what he means is false scepticism, the mental attitude of someone who can be called a True Unbeliever.  Or a "fundie atheist", like my wife calls them.

He's a guy who has had a sceptical revelation ("God does not exist", "Magic spells do not work", etc), but he stops right there and calcifies his revelation(s) into rigid dogmatism by never ever questioning his beliefs again.

The difference between a false sceptic and a true sceptic is that the true skeptic pays attention to reality, while the false skeptic no longer does - he found out the truths of the universe once, now he just pays attention to his past revelation(s).

I think that is what Azidonis meant.  Am I right?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 8:49 pm  
"HG" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

You still haven't given me an example of what you're talking about here. I'm not asking you to "discuss probabilities" or anything like that. You made this claim, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it. I can't even picture what you're talking about, which is why I'm asking you for clarification. How, exactly, would a skeptical approach (that is, not accepting claims until there's sufficient evidence for them) make a person "gullible"? Can you give a few examples of what you're talking about?

I think what he means is false scepticism, the mental attitude of someone who can be called a True Unbeliever.  Or a "fundie atheist", like my wife calls them.

He's a guy who has had a sceptical revelation ("God does not exist", "Magic spells do not work", etc), but he stops right there and calcifies his revelation(s) into rigid dogmatism by never ever questioning his beliefs again.

The difference between a false sceptic and a true sceptic is that the true skeptic pays attention to reality, while the false skeptic no longer does - he found out the truths of the universe once, now he just pays attention to his past revelation(s).

I think that is what Azidonis meant.  Am I right?

Well, if that's what he meant, then it's perfectly true that "dogmatic materialism" in this sense is just as much an error as dogmatic supernaturalism.

[Though it's not necessarily an example of someone accepting a false claim]

But a dogmatic materialist no longer properly practices skepticism. And that was my point: it's only through a proper application of skepticism -- and not through a dogmatic acceptance of any position -- that a person can succeed in the goal of believing as many true claims (and as few false claims) as possible.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 9:00 pm  

Oh, look its the eight pages of pointless bickering that I predicted, way back on the first page.  How surprising!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
11/10/2012 9:05 pm  
"HG" wrote:
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
[...]Los' and Erwin's arrogant and condescending tone[...]

Number 34:

"You present facts in an arrogant and condescending tone.  Therefore magick works."

At no stage did Lutz say that or even imply it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 9:40 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Well, why don't you go back through my posts and tell me where I have ever been claiming that "magick works" or "the supernatural is real" or whatever you think that those "occultists" say and think all the time.

Reading your posts is bad enough the first time round. Asking someone to read them twice is clearly not a reasonable request.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
All I have been saying for years is that the Thelema that you and Los are trying to sell as Crowley's Thelema is nothing but a derivate of those parts of his ouevre you happen to like, or happen to understand or think you understand.

And you're wrong. Remember when you discussed my Holy Guardian Angel essay with me? That one that goes through substantially every significant mention of the Holy Guardian Angel in his entire published corpus and shows it aligns pretty much exactly, point by point, with the representation of Crowley's Thelema that I've been giving for years, and showing that it doesn't align at all with the weird brand of Spaceman "Thelema" that you and others present? Do you remember what your response was? That you "think that [my] argument cannot be refuted realistically by anyone", but that nevertheless you are "very much looking forward to the forthcoming publication of his Collected Diaries...because the diaries might be more honest than his 'published work of prose'...[and therefore] I am afraid that your words are not final."

So that's your presentation of "Crowley's Thelema" - dismissing all his published works which you agree that I have correctly interpreted, and hoping that, one day, something hitherto unpublished will come to light that agrees with your Spaceman nonsense and overturns his entire published body of work on the matter.

Don't make me laugh.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 9:52 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And if you really don't get that the "phenomenon" of which I speak is not any "practical, detectable difference" of the ring, then ... well, then you just don't get it. Think harder. Oh, I forgot: it's a known fact that "occultists" charge rings to create a "practical, detectable difference" in the ring. What else could it be good for?

I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse or just plain dumb, but you seem to be stubbornly resisting the obvious fact that if there is no "practical, detectable difference in the ring", then nobody has "charged" it. Nobody has, in fact, done anything to it, because it's exactly the same as it was before. If a "charged ring" is identical to an "uncharged" ring, which is what you are claiming, there there is no charging going on. It's not that people "charge a ring in order to create a practical, detectable difference in it" - it's that if they don't create a practical, detectable difference in it, then they evidently have not charged it. Once again, if a "charged ring" is identical in every way to an "uncharged ring", then "ring charging" simply does not exist anywhere except in the imagination.

Really, this shouldn't be that difficult to follow.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4949
11/10/2012 10:55 pm  

Kirlian Photos - Before & After[/align:2f16ruyf]

[/align:2f16ruyf]

[/align:2f16ruyf]

[/align:2f16ruyf]

Of course, silver (metal) and lapis (stone) might be harder to influence. We'll have to wait and see.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 10:56 pm  

Well, there's an issue with presuppositions.

When any new phenomena arrives into one's consciousness, it becomes attracted or repelled due to preexisting suppositions. For example, one sees an object that one has never seen before, and has no prior knowledge as to what the object is.

So, we roll through our memory Rolodex, and try to find things that might fit to help us describe the object. Each one of the memories in the Rolodex has so many preexisting suppositions attached to it. Say, for example, a person does not like the color red. If one finds that the object is indeed red, then a tendency exists to place all attributes of the color "red" onto that object. From this, you get statements such as, "I like that car, but it is an ugly color." The statement about the car's color is based upon the viewer's own presuppositions about that color. In fact, whether or not the person "likes" the car is also based upon presuppositions.

When dealing with something like skepticism, it is quite easy to say, "not accepting claims until there's sufficient evidence for them", as Los has said. There is an inherent issue though, which is presuppositions. So, take someone with say, an Orthodox Jewish background. That person (no one in reality, just an example) has been trained all of their lives to think of Judaism as the "one true religion". That person has developed a presupposition that will make them more skeptical of other religions than their own. This leads to a type of blindness, and is the cause of demonization, infidelity on behalf anyone not an Orthodox Jew, and other such nonsense.

Unfortunately for our purposes, we aren't talking about something so easy as a person believing one thing and refusing to accept anything else until proven otherwise. For when it comes to beliefs, some people hold onto their beliefs in spite of established facts.

Let's bring up Crowley's words on the matter. In The Book of Thoth he says thus:

It is by going through all these confusing (and sometimes seemingly contradictory) attributions, with unwearying patience and persistent energy, that one comes at the end to a lucid understanding, to an understanding which is infinitely clearer than any intellectual interpretation could possibly be. This is a fundamental exercise in the way to initiation. If one were a shallow rationalist, it would be quite easy to pick holes in all these attributions and semi-philosophical hypotheses, or near-hypotheses; but it is also quite simple to prove by mathematics that it is impossible to hit a golf ball.

There's a problem with this, in that modern psychics has determined that it is not only mathematically possible to hit a golf ball, but very effective. One so inclined can take a look at The Physics of Golf for more information. It's an interesting issue and claim on Crowley's part, as he makes no mention of the actual calculations he is referring to.

He did not say it is impossible to hit a golf ball, rather that it is mathematically possible to prove it cannot be done. But, it can be done, and Tiger Woods' bank account is a sure testament to that. So, what of the math? Without this math, there is no way to know whether what Crowley said in this case is true. But we do know that it was during Crowley's lifetime that modern physics was taking root and beginning to grow, and eventually it was not only able to explain the mathematics behind the golf ball, but find many ways to exploit the same physics. An examination of the case simply says that golf balls can be hit, it is mathematically provable that they can be hit, and Crowley did not furnish the mathematics he used to assert his claim, therefore it is safe to remain skeptical of his claim.

Another example, indicates that bees are aerodynamically incapable of flying. Although the science has not figured it out yet, some ideas help to determine exactly how this phenomenon works. Traditional aerodynamics are inconclusive concerning bee flight. From there, some person or another may have determined that "it is aerodynamically impossible for bees to fly". The skeptic finds that bees fly around as a primary mode of movement, despite what we know about aerodynamics. Thus, they set forth in a continued attempt to figure out how it is done. This is a good example where people use logic and skepticism in an effort to establish the facts of some claims.

A third example can be found within the 1=2 equation. It is possible, through the use of basic algebra, to determine that 1=2. You can tell someone all day that 1=2 and they simply will not believe it. "Show me the proof". So you show them the proof, but that still does not make 1=2 in all cases. It makes 1=2 in a particular case, and thus its use is limited. In this case, the skeptic may have been initially correct in assuming that 1 does not equal 2, but when presented with the factual equation the skeptic is forced to accept the proof. This is an interesting case though, as the 1=2 equation is a sort of outlier.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent effective formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable. Thus no formal system (satisfying the hypotheses of the theorem) that aims to characterize the natural numbers can actually do so, as there will be true number-theoretical statements which that system cannot prove. "

Basically, there is always an outlier. The outlier exists when specific conditions are met. Here is perhaps the best example of where, "not accepting claims until there's sufficient evidence for them" takes its toll, when something is simply unprovable.

Where presuppositions exist, pure skepticism does not. This is so because there is always an outlying factor that either will not coincide with the presuppositions, or the object in question, or both. Thus, we use the phrase "accumulation of knowledge", to indicate that an additional set of attributes have been added to our presuppositions. Even if we think ourselves to be skeptical here, we really aren't. We are merely hesitant to add anything to the accumulated Rolodex, thereby placing the examined object into the Rolodex anyway, under the classification "skeptical".

Where unprovable claims exist, like Crowley's golf ball math, it is fine to remain skeptic, up until they are proven to be unprovable.

The point is this. We are discussing in this thread something that science has not yet been able to either prove or disprove, or prove as unprovable yet. We know that bio-electric fields do exist around the body. We know that silver rings have a +1 ionic charge (I'm not a physicist, or a chemistry person). We know that a metallic object, such as a silver ring, can be electrically charged, and has a determinable focus in the center of that charge. We know that the body has a charge, and that its charge can interact with the universe in ways that we have yet to fully discover.

We also know that a set of molecules is "solid", but that does not mean it isn't moving. It means that it has formulated a set of bonds that allow it to appear solid, and interact "as a solid". It is still really just a collection of atoms - protons, electrons, and neutrons (more sattva, rajas, tamas) - and that collection is in constant motion, constant change. We know that the atoms of a human body change, and that atomically we get new bodies over the course of approximately 7 years. So what appears as solid, and "acts as solid", is indeed solid, but is also constantly changing.

The science then, would be to determine whether or not the bio-electric field of the human body interacts with the electric field of the silver ring. Discovering if they interact at all, and how they interact, may lead us to the actual science of the whole "consecrating the ring" business. Until then, some people will think that the ring does have a charge, and will react accordingly. Some people will not, and will choose to remain skeptical of the entire process. The jury is still out on this one though, and people are encouraged to help solve the dilemma.

Either way, "Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will", and thus both people are performing a sort of magick on themselves, whether they know it or not. Both people are convincing themselves either to agree with the as yet unproven claims, or to agree that the claims have not been proven, essentially disagreeing that a ring can be charged (ie. remaining skeptical).

The problem with this see-saw, is that it is only effective within the realm of thought. Within the realm of thought, thinking that the ring is charged may variably cause a change in focus and approach. Within the realm of thought, thinking it is all hokum also may variably cause a change in focus and approach.

To accept the charge and deny the skepticism is to hop onto one seat of the see-saw. To deny the charge and accept the skepticism is to hop onto the other seat.

However, when faced with 'some-thing' that is definitely not 'some-thing', that 'exists' but definitely 'does not exist', what then? (Not talking about the ring now.)

One can accept it, as it is, and leave it alone. Or, one can remain skeptical about it, and try and dissect it any way imaginable, either to prove it right or wrong. However, just like the incompleteness theorem, a 'thing' that is 'not a thing' cannot be proven by thought. Therefore, the choice to accept it or not really does not matter. If it cannot be proven using thought, and science is a product of thought, then it is unprovable. "Thought is not the instrument, and there is no other instrument." - U.G. Krishnamurti

So where to go from there? Can we accept that everything we have accepted is unacceptable? Can we be skeptic even of our own skepticism? If we cannot question ourselves, what we have accepted, what we have not accepted, and everything in-between, and be brutally honest about it, then we will make no real headway in the ultimate game.

This means that some things we may not like or agree with, such as the fact that people exist who accept the possibility of a charged item or artifact, will eventually have to be accepted. And some things that we have remained skeptical about, we will see for ourselves and eventually have to accept.

Likewise, some things that we have accepted are actually unacceptable when faced with the facts, and we have to be ready to toss those things out in face of the facts, not in the face of the person presenting them.

Either way, the end is the same. There is no other instrument, and there's nothing we can do about it. No matter how much we try, or how loud we yell on the forums, it won't matter one bit.

Consciousness runs along its pattern, much like the number system. Until the outlier is reached, one is only picking and choosing various numbers on the number line, and either agreeing, disagreeing, or withholding judgement. When people actually withhold their judgements, however, agreement or disagreement simply does not matter, leaving these forums free from the flood of yells and pointing fingers from across the see-saw.

Anything less is an attempt to pair one set of presuppositions and acceptances off against another set, setting the entire see-saw in motion, resulting in naught but Confusion.

"Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog"


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4949
11/10/2012 11:19 pm  

It's a funny thing, but "Ye Olde Magick Ring" is not covered in Book 4 or other similar tomes. Blasting Rods are mentioned (Allan Bennett had one - according to AC).

Well, there was mention of ... a famous story (Confessions, p.625-626) where Crowley enters into an Arab coffee house where a fight is in progress. Crowley, dressed in turban and robes recalls "I walked into the scrimmage and drew sigils in the air with the [star sapphire] ring while intoning a chapter of the Koran. The fuss stopped instantly, and a few minutes later the original parties to the dispute came to me and begged me to decide between them, for they saw that I was a saint."

Now there's absolute proof in a hand basket. Proof of what? Why, proof of rings - and the fact that they can be used. Too bad the Kirlian photographer wasn't there, eh? Too bad any kind of motion picture photographer wasn't there - I surely would like to see this scene  😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 11:20 pm  
"Los" wrote:
But nobody's ever done that....hmmm....why do you think that might be....?

Electrostatics
Triboelectric effect
The Triboelectric Series
Another list.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 11:46 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
A third example can be found within the 1=2 equation. It is possible, through the use of basic algebra, to determine that 1=2. You can tell someone all day that 1=2 and they simply will not believe it. "Show me the proof". So you show them the proof, but that still does not make 1=2 in all cases. It makes 1=2 in a particular case, and thus its use is limited. In this case, the skeptic may have been initially correct in assuming that 1 does not equal 2, but when presented with the factual equation the skeptic is forced to accept the proof. This is an interesting case though, as the 1=2 equation is a sort of outlier.

Er, the "1=2 equation" is only an "outlier" in the fact that it's bad arithmetic. There's a division by zero in there, which isn't allowed. It's not a "proof" at all, the skeptic is only "forced to accept the proof" if he has subnormal mathematical knowledge.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent effective formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable. Thus no formal system (satisfying the hypotheses of the theorem) that aims to characterize the natural numbers can actually do so, as there will be true number-theoretical statements which that system cannot prove. "

Basically, there is always an outlier.

Ugh, not this again. The incompleteness theorems have little to no relevance to real world stuff, because:

1. It only applies to formal systems large enough to encompass the whole of arithmetic, and it's not at all clear that you need such a large system to fully describe the workings of the universe, and if you don't, you don't suffer from Godel incompleteness.

2. The incompleteness only arises because it becomes possible, in a system that large, to construct logical statements which cannot be proven by that system. It is in all cases always possible to construct a system that large which is both consistent and complete with respect to the statements that you actually see. Thus, you could have in theory a formal system which is complete and consistent with respect to everything that we ever see happening in the universe, and the fact that its possible to construct statements within that system that correspond to things we never see happening becomes only of mild academic interest.

Really, the incompleteness theorems are relevant to attempts to axiomatise the whole of mathematics. There's really no mystical significance in there and there's no difficulties are far as learning about the universe is concerned. It's really only a problem in the first place because you're trying to prove mathematical statements using mathematical proofs. It doesn't tell you anything significant or spooky about the nature of reality and the fundamental inconsistency of being, or any of that new-age garbage.

"Azidonis" wrote:
The point is this. We are discussing in this thread something that science has not yet been able to either prove or disprove, or prove as unprovable yet. We know that bio-electric fields do exist around the body. We know that silver rings have a +1 ionic charge (I'm not a physicist, or a chemistry person). We know that a metallic object, such as a silver ring, can be electrically charged, and has a determinable focus in the center of that charge. We know that the body has a charge, and that its charge can interact with the universe in ways that we have yet to fully discover.

So, in other words, you're saying that for millennia people have been claiming to "perform magick" while having absolutely no idea whatsoever whether what they are doing is having any effect at all, because it's impossible for anybody, including them, to determine how or even if they are interacting with the objects in question? In other words, they've all just been making it up out of thin air as they went along?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 12:16 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
There's a division by zero in there

Good catch. I missed it (obviously).

"Erwin" wrote:
It is in all cases always possible to construct a system that large which is both consistent and complete with respect to the statements that you actually see. Thus, you could have in theory a formal system which is complete and consistent with respect to everything that we ever see happening in the universe, and the fact that its possible to construct statements within that system that correspond to things we never see happening becomes only of mild academic interest.

The word "see" in this case is an indication of physical sight, yes? You aren't talking about the "see" which is more along the lines of "understanding".

"Erwin" wrote:
Really, the incompleteness theorems are relevant to attempts to axiomatise the whole of mathematics. There's really no mystical significance in there and there's no difficulties are far as learning about the universe is concerned. It's really only a problem in the first place because you're trying to prove mathematical statements using mathematical proofs. It doesn't tell you anything significant or spooky about the nature of reality and the fundamental inconsistency of being, or any of that new-age garbage.

I used it to show that there are outliers in systems, numerical or otherwise, despite you saying, "Thus, you could have in theory a formal system which is complete and consistent with respect to everything that we ever see happening in the universe".

"Erwin" wrote:
So, in other words, you're saying that for millennia people have been claiming to "perform magick" while having absolutely no idea whatsoever whether what they are doing is having any effect at all, because it's impossible for anybody, including them, to determine how or even if they are interacting with the objects in question? In other words, they've all just been making it up out of thin air as they went along?

You obviously missed the point.

The only mention of "magick" in the entire post was this:

"Azidonis" wrote:
Either way, "Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will", and thus both people are performing a sort of magick on themselves, whether they know it or not. Both people are convincing themselves either to agree with the as yet unproven claims, or to agree that the claims have not been proven, essentially disagreeing that a ring can be charged (ie. remaining skeptical).

As far as your "even if they are interacting with the objects in question", I take it you are under the assumption that no exchange of anything whatsoever takes place during any operation, that nothing happens in regard to anything at all, under no circumstances.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 1:06 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
The word "see" in this case is an indication of physical sight, yes? You aren't talking about the "see" which is more along the lines of "understanding".

"See" as in "observe", or "detect", whether its with the eyes, the nose, instrumentation, or whatever else. Basically it is possible, in principle, to construct a logical system which is both consistent and complete which is capable of describing absolutely everything we can see, observe, detect, perceive, or whatever else, in the universe, provided that it turns out to be possible to describe them with a logical system at all, of course. This is because at a minimum, the observations we make are finite, and if you have a finite set of observations to explain, you don't suffer from Godel incompleteness. It's possible, but certainly not demonstrated, that there are only a finite number of things that in principle could happen in the universe, but it's not necessary to assume this.

To simplify, the reason you get Godel incompleteness is because you are attempting to prove mathematical statements using the same mathematical system the statements themselves come from. If you meet a statement you can't prove with the system, you can always - always - expand the system so that you can prove it. The problem is that when you do this, you now have a bigger system, and that bigger system is capable of constructing more statements than it could before, and when you look at those statements, you find that some of them need an even bigger system to prove them, and so it goes on indefinitely once you pass that level of complexity sufficient to encompass the whole of arithmetic.

If you are looking to prove a finite set of statements, rather than all statements that could possibly be constructed using a given logical system, then Godel incompleteness is of no consequence to you. It's of consequence to mathematicians seeking to axiomatise the whole of mathematics, because when they expand their system to explain their statements, their entire subject matter just got bigger. This is not true if, for instance, you're trying to explain a finite set of observations that you've made about the universe, the fact that the logical system you're using to explain them is capable of constructing more statements is neither here nor there - you're still left with the exact same number of observations to explain as you were originally.

In other words, the universe works in the way that it works, regardless of what logical system you try to use to describe it. The universe doesn't fundamentally change as a result of you using a more complex system to describe it, in the way that an attempt to axiomatise mathematics fundamentally and rather obviously changes if you add new axioms to that attempt. Godel's incompleteness theorems therefore don't suggest that reality is spooky or inherently inconsistent in some way, or that there'll always, in principle, be something that you can't prove.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I used it to show that there are outliers in systems, numerical or otherwise, despite you saying, "Thus, you could have in theory a formal system which is complete and consistent with respect to everything that we ever see happening in the universe".

There are only "outliers" in some systems, namely those systems large enough to contain the whole of arithmetic, and as I explained above, you only care about this when the whole of arithmetic is precisely what you're trying to describe with that system. There are plenty of systems which do not suffer from Godel incompleteness because they're not large enough to contain the whole of arithmetic, Presburger arithmetic and Euclidian geometry being two well-known examples.

"Azidonis" wrote:
As far as your "even if they are interacting with the objects in question", I take it you are under the assumption that no exchange of anything whatsoever takes place during any operation, that nothing happens in regard to anything at all, under no circumstances.

Well, it depends on the operation. To use the wanking over a drawing example we were so delightfully reminded of, obviously some kind of exchange takes place during that "operation". When you hold a ring, you're probably going to be transferring heat energy to it, so again, some kind of exchange may well be taking place. Such exchanges are pretty trivial. We're interested in particular types of interactions, here, namely those which are purported to be "magical" in some way (specifically, not in the way which includes "potato growing and banking").

My point is that the types of exchanges which people are claiming to cause "magical effects" of whatever kind cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, even by the people claiming to make the exchanges, according to your recent suggestion, which means that they have absolutely no grounds whatsoever for making such claims, since they are unable to determine either way if anything has happened. If you accept that they are able to determine that something has happened, then you can't go around claiming that it can't be proven, because you've just admitted that they've done exactly that.

As Los has pointed out, even if you can't detect the actual physical change other than through some kind of "clairvoyant psychic sense", you could still line up a bunch of different rings and have a clairvoyant pick the charged one out pretty reliably, which would at least demonstrate that something worth investigating further is happening. Sure, you can wonder about how much is going on in the ring and how much is going on in the interaction between it and the clairvoyant, but either way you'll have demonstrated that something is happening which needs looking into, which would be a start. Currently, the entire subject of magick is sitting in the "no case to answer" category, because it hasn't even yet been demonstrated that there's anything happening at all, let alone anything that suggests a supernatural explanation may be necessary.

The point is, you really can't simultaneously say that we're not capable of demonstrating something either way, and that "magicians" have good grounds for supposing that they're actually performing magick. Either you can demonstrate it, or they're making it up as they go along to suit themselves.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 1:55 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
Well, it depends on the operation. To use the wanking over a drawing example we were so delightfully reminded of, obviously some kind of exchange takes place during that "operation". When you hold a ring, you're probably going to be transferring heat energy to it, so again, some kind of exchange may well be taking place. Such exchanges are pretty trivial. We're interested in particular types of interactions, here, namely those which are purported to be "magical" in some way (specifically, not in the way which includes "potato growing and banking").

So you want it to glow in vibrant colors with a big sign on it?

"Erwin" wrote:
My point is that the types of exchanges which people are claiming to cause "magical effects" of whatever kind cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, even by the people claiming to make the exchanges, according to your recent suggestion, which means that they have absolutely no grounds whatsoever for making such claims, since they are unable to determine either way if anything has happened. If you accept that they are able to determine that something has happened, then you can't go around claiming that it can't be proven, because you've just admitted that they've done exactly that.

"something that science has not yet been able to either prove or disprove, or prove as unprovable yet"

Some want to believe that a thing can eventually be proven, some believe it won't be proven, some believe it cannot be proven, some don't care, etc.

"Erwin" wrote:
As Los has pointed out, even if you can't detect the actual physical change other than through some kind of "clairvoyant psychic sense", you could still line up a bunch of different rings and have a clairvoyant pick the charged one out pretty reliably, which would at least demonstrate that something worth investigating further is happening. Sure, you can wonder about how much is going on in the ring and how much is going on in the interaction between it and the clairvoyant, but either way you'll have demonstrated that something is happening which needs looking into, which would be a start. Currently, the entire subject of magick is sitting in the "no case to answer" category, because it hasn't even yet been demonstrated that there's anything happening at all, let alone anything that suggests a supernatural explanation may be necessary.

I don't think a supernatural explanation is necessary in either possible outcome. Either an actual physical change happens (however great or small), or it doesn't. Either way, a perceived change occurs within the perception of the individual, indicated by such words as "personalization".

"Erwin" wrote:
The point is, you really can't simultaneously say that we're not capable of demonstrating something either way, and that "magicians" have good grounds for supposing that they're actually performing magick. Either you can demonstrate it, or they're making it up as they go along to suit themselves.

Magick is defined as "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will", which is a very simple statement. In the case of the ring, either an actual physical phenomenon (change, exchange, etc) occurs, or it doesn't. There's no "magick" to the physical process, in that sense, if a physical phenomenon does not occur. Within the perception of the individual, a perceived change does occur, even if the perception is but one of ownership or affinity.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 2:25 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
So you want it to glow in vibrant colors with a big sign on it?

I don't want it to do anything. I'm not the one wanking over drawings and pretending that it's magick, here. Who knows what magick N.O.X. is pretending he's doing, you'd be better off asking him.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Some want to believe that a thing can eventually be proven, some believe it won't be proven, some believe it cannot be proven, some don't care, etc.

Yes? Notably absent from this list is anyone thinking that it's been demonstrated now. If you can't demonstrate that what you just did did something, then you have no idea whether or not it did something. If they haven't demonstrated it now then they have no business claiming that they're "performing magick". They've got just as much reason to claim that they're sending apricots to Jupiter, i.e. none.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I don't think a supernatural explanation is necessary in either possible outcome.

Well, it would be necessary if - in the unlikely event, as they say on the airlines - it turned out to have a supernatural cause. No other explanation would do.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Either an actual physical change happens (however great or small), or it doesn't.

But people interested in such things would still want to know the cause, and if it's not supernatural, its not magick. I know there are folks here who say "nothing's 'supernatural'! Everything's 'natural'! We just may not have the natural explanation yet!" but that's only because they don't know what 'supernatural' means. Some Christians believe their god intervenes in the world and causes physical change through supernatural means all the time, for instance.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Either way, a perceived change occurs within the perception of the individual, indicated by such words as "personalization".

Changing perception is trivial, and isn't "magick" in the sense here being discussed. Anyone who wants to come out and agree that magick is all in the imagination and deals with thoughts and perceptions and not real physical things will find no argument from me.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Magick is defined as "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will", which is a very simple statement. In the case of the ring, either an actual physical phenomenon (change, exchange, etc) occurs, or it doesn't. There's no "magick" to the physical process, in that sense, if a physical phenomenon does not occur. Within the perception of the individual, a perceived change does occur, even if the perception is but one of ownership or affinity.

Again, if all that's being claimed to be happening is that the individual ends up feeling differently about the ring, I have no quibble, because that's trivial everyday stuff. But that isn't "magick" in the sense we're discussing here. You can harp on about "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will" as much as you like, but it's pretty clear what kind of "magick" we've been talking about, here, so attempting to be slippery and resolving the matter by resorting to prevarication isn't going to cut the mustard, at least not with me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 4:02 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's an interesting issue and claim on Crowley's part, as he makes no mention of the actual calculations he is referring to...

He did not say it is impossible to hit a golf ball, rather that it is mathematically possible to prove it cannot be done. But, it can be done, and Tiger Woods' bank account is a sure testament to that. So, what of the math? Without this math, there is no way to know whether what Crowley said in this case is true ... Crowley did not furnish the mathematics he used to assert his claim, therefore it is safe to remain skeptical of his claim.

By the way, if you're really interested, the "mathematics" he's referring to here are Zeno's paradoxes. Although he used tortoises and arrows in his examples, the simplest way to look at it is that in order for the golf club to hit the ball, it has to travel half of the distance remaining. When it gets there, it has to travel half of the remaining distance from that point. And when it gets there if has to travel half of the remaining distance from that point. The paradox states that, no matter how close it gets, there is always some distance left, and there is literally no end to the number of times you can divide the remaining distance into half, and since it always takes some time to travel, the club will not reach the ball even in an infinite amount of time, because there are an infinite amount of intermediate steps to be taken.

Mathematics in Zeno's day didn't have the tools to deal with convergent infinite series, but it does now.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 4:03 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Magick is defined as "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will", which is a very simple statement. In the case of the ring, either an actual physical phenomenon (change, exchange, etc) occurs, or it doesn't. There's no "magick" to the physical process, in that sense, if a physical phenomenon does not occur. Within the perception of the individual, a perceived change does occur, even if the perception is but one of ownership or affinity.

Again, if all that's being claimed to be happening is that the individual ends up feeling differently about the ring, I have no quibble, because that's trivial everyday stuff. But that isn't "magick" in the sense we're discussing here. You can harp on about "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will" as much as you like, but it's pretty clear what kind of "magick" we've been talking about, here, so attempting to be slippery and resolving the matter by resorting to prevarication isn't going to cut the mustard, at least not with me.

There's nothing slippery about it.

You want the term "magick" to mean something other than it means, namely pink unicorns and Harry Potter. If it doesn't mean pink unicorns and Harry Potter, then you don't really have a case.

The "Magick", or "science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will", has much less to do with pink unicorns and giant butterflies, and much more to do with actual changes in the perception of an individual, and the application of those changes into the material world. This is, effectively, "causing change to occur in conformity with will". This does happen to include actual physics-related phenomena, some of which modern science has not understood yet. But this has nothing to do with pink unicorns, or gremlins, or goblins, or any other such thing.

You want the term to mean something like this:

i-can-melt-ice-with-my-mind-just-give-me-a-few-minutes-28035d0c-sz500x375-animate.jpg

If it does so, you can then point out that the ice is going to melt anyway, if the room temperature is higher than that of the ice cube, and that the mind really doesn't have anything to do with it, which is true, and fine, until all the pointing and yelling goes on. ::)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 4:13 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's an interesting issue and claim on Crowley's part, as he makes no mention of the actual calculations he is referring to...

He did not say it is impossible to hit a golf ball, rather that it is mathematically possible to prove it cannot be done. But, it can be done, and Tiger Woods' bank account is a sure testament to that. So, what of the math? Without this math, there is no way to know whether what Crowley said in this case is true ... Crowley did not furnish the mathematics he used to assert his claim, therefore it is safe to remain skeptical of his claim.

By the way, if you're really interested, the "mathematics" he's referring to here are Zeno's paradoxes. Although he used tortoises and arrows in his examples, the simplest way to look at it is that in order for the golf club to hit the ball, it has to travel half of the distance remaining. When it gets there, it has to travel half of the remaining distance from that point. And when it gets there if has to travel half of the remaining distance from that point. The paradox states that, no matter how close it gets, there is always some distance left, and there is literally no end to the number of times you can divide the remaining distance into half, and since it always takes some time to travel, the club will not reach the ball even in an infinite amount of time, because there are an infinite amount of intermediate steps to be taken.

Mathematics in Zeno's day didn't have the tools to deal with convergent infinite series, but it does now.

Thank you very much for this. If the need arises I will look into it further. But as you might probably assume (and rightfully so!), math is not my strong suit.

I asked my wife if she could tell me where the guy divides by zero, and she pointed it out immediately. I completely missed it.

I was trying to provide Los with examples of how systems break down, including systems of skepticism.

All systems break down at some point, all systems have anomalies, and so forth. Even the broader system that is our universe consists of layers upon layers of smaller systems integrated wonderfully into a whole. But it too is constantly changing, and we won't be around to know if and when that set of systems breaks down.

The ivory tower of skepticism is still an ivory tower. At the least, it breaks down when there is nothing left to be skeptical about.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
12/10/2012 5:11 am  

There is no “Soul.”

There is no “Supernatual.” No Goblins or Unicorns or “Spacemen.”

You are here and you won’t be. Then BAM! Whether you are a self-deluded idiot or an Ipsissimus, it’s the same end.
 
Erwin and the schmuck who “believes” in “Tinkerbell.”

BAM!

Done.

Now, Erwin, tell us:

Is this so?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:33 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
The science then, would be to determine whether or not the bio-electric field of the human body interacts with the electric field of the silver ring. Discovering if they interact at all, and how they interact, may lead us to the actual science of the whole "consecrating the ring" business. Until then, some people will think that the ring does have a charge, and will react accordingly. Some people will not, and will choose to remain skeptical of the entire process. The jury is still out on this one though, and people are encouraged to help solve the dilemma.

I've been saying that a skeptical approach -- i.e. in this case, not accepting the claim "a ring can be magically charged" until it can be demonstrated -- is the only consistently reliable method of achieving the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible (that is, the goal of having as accurate a mental map of reality as possible).

You haven't addressed that point at all, nor have you done anything to support your claim that skepticism can somehow lead to "gullibility."

You've brought up concepts like Zeno's paradox and Godel's theorems, which have nothing to do with "not accepting claims until they have been demonstrated to be true." Or, if you think that they *do* have something to do with it, the connection is not clear at all. So I'm still waiting for you to meaningfully address my argument or support your own claim -- or even give me a practical example of how a skeptical approach could cause someone to accept a false claim. You haven't done any of that yet.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
12/10/2012 5:35 am  

Johnny Science-

Forget this whole thread. Get a Moon Chart. Find the Sign which relates to your Intention. Bury your ring 3 Signs prior to the Sign which best channels your Intent. Dig it up as Luna enters this Sign. Put it on and rock it. When you do, hold it up to the night sky and declare your intent. You don't need a photo to show you the aura. Your own aura will join with the ring. I am a bit embarrassed for Erwin but whatever. He's been an arrogant fool on these-and other-forums (look at his "list" of "objections" where he has to twist everyone's words to serve his own purpose).

Hessel is a dork. His "superior wisdom" is equal to a belief in "Tinkerbell." As for YOU: you have the ring. Now, let's charge it!

1) Charge it to WHAT PURPOSE?

2) Select the Correct Sign.

3) Do the Burial/Resurrection Rite.

4) Do this and put it ON!

5) Get a Moleskin and make entries each day. See how this plays out. Go at this for 6 months.

Erwin never did this-because he thinks this is nonsense. But you have the ring. So do this.

What's the worst thing that can happen? You'll vanish into the same oblivion as "Erwin Hessle?"

Seems like you're going there anyway!

Change that ring! And Godspeed!

93,

Kyle (who doesn't buy bullshit but who doesn't buy "Erwin's" creepy dogma)   


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:39 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
There is no “Soul.”

There is no “Supernatual.” No Goblins or Unicorns or “Spacemen.”

You are here and you won’t be. Then BAM! Whether you are a self-deluded idiot or an Ipsissimus, it’s the same end.
 
Erwin and the schmuck who “believes” in “Tinkerbell.”

BAM!

Done.

Now, Erwin, tell us:

Is this so?

I'm reminded of the religious folks who say, "So this life is it, huh? Mother Theresa and Hitler are both in the same place, the ground? You live this life and then -- BAM -- that's it? What a creepy, depressing 'worldview' you atheists have!"

It's the old, "I don't like the fact that this universe is all there is. Therefore, magick works" (which number are we up to, anyway?)


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
12/10/2012 5:39 am  

Los-

MAGICK has nothing to do with "claims."

This is where you (with your very much appreciated and recognized knowledge base) have gone wrong.

-Kidneyhawk 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
12/10/2012 5:41 am  

Los-

Your reply to me above is retarded. Nor does it address my post.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:42 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Get a Moon Chart. Find the Sign which relates to your Intention. Bury your ring 3 Signs prior to the Sign which best channels your Intent. Dig it up as Luna enters this Sign. Put it on and rock it. When you do, hold it up to the night sky and declare your intent. [..]Your own aura will join with the ring.

And on the basis of what evidence have you concluded that this works?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:44 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
MAGICK has nothing to do with "claims."

You yourself, Kyle, have made numerous factual claims in this thread.

For example, you made the factual claim that doing certain things causes one's "aura" to "join with the ring." That's a claim about the universe.

On what basis did you decide that this claim is true? What evidence led you to think that it's true? This isn't a "nit pick." It's absolutely essential to the entire process.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 5:48 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
You want the term "magick" to mean something other than it means, namely pink unicorns and Harry Potter. If it doesn't mean pink unicorns and Harry Potter, then you don't really have a case.

Nothing to do with what I want. Blame the guys who started talking about "charging rings" and whatnot if you don't like it. I'm arguing against the actual claims that are being made. What word you personally do or don't choose to describe those claims with is of no consequence, here. Quit playing word games and focus on the actual issues.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 5:51 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
There is no “Soul.”

There is no “Supernatual.” No Goblins or Unicorns or “Spacemen.”

Finally. Another one out of the closet. For about a nanosecond, I confidently predict.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 5:55 am  
"Los" wrote:
It's the old, "I don't like the fact that this universe is all there is. Therefore, magick works" (which number are we up to, anyway?)

There's been about another ten in the last few posts alone. My new personal favorite is:

"You have the ring! Therefore magick works. Precious."


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
12/10/2012 6:02 am  

Los-

You are a fool. On a personal level, I don't mean to be insulting. If you were my neighbor, I'm sure I would love you (some guy who wants to talk Crowley and Skepticism and Philosophy). Damn, if I wouldn't be happy that you wandered over for our grill-outs!

What is the basis that I've concluded that my comments to Johnny worK?

I've DONE it.

Want to mock Kyle (Kidneyhawk)?

Go for it.

Kyle (Fite) doesn't care.

You may as well be commenting on Kyle's comments re: martial arts in some speculative way.

"How do you KNOW that reaction/counter-strike is effective?"

Los, I have no respect for "Erwin." Whoever he is, he is an ass. I DO have a respect for YOU. This respect is not complete but that is OK. Suffice to say, I feel you are willing to "get into the ring."

There is a place where one does not question "evidence." You don't think this way when you fall in love. Now, consider Crowley's "Liber Astarte." You are being led to "fall in love" with your Deity of Choice. This Deity is to function as a Vehicle for Universal Love. 

Have you performed this Liber?

And, if so, what have you to say re: Universal Love? 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 6:16 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
It's the old, "I don't like the fact that this universe is all there is. Therefore, magick works" (which number are we up to, anyway?)

There's been about another ten in the last few posts alone. My new personal favorite is:

"You have the ring! Therefore magick works. Precious."

I rarely literally "laugh out loud" when reading things online, but that was an el-oh-el moment for me.

From a little earlier in the thread:

"Erwin" wrote:
Again, if all that's being claimed to be happening is that the individual ends up feeling differently about the ring, I have no quibble, because that's trivial everyday stuff.

It's interesting to observe that when one pins down believers and tries to get them to articulate exactly what it is that they believe, the claims tend to retreat farther and farther from the grand statements that often start the discussion. At the start of this thread, for example, people were acting as if it were possible to "charge" a ring with magical power, as if some kind of real change were happening in the ring...and now, we're getting this weak stuff along the lines of, "well, maybe it just kinda changes how a person perceives the ring."

Now granted, the people who made those grand claims -- namely N.O.X. -- have wisely retreated entirely from the thread when it became clear that they could not support their claims. But the believers who have been left to try to defend these claims have been forced, by virtue of trying to come up with evidence to support these beliefs, to retreat so far from the original claim that we're barely talking about anything at all at this point.

There's a direct parallel in the phenomenon of the "God of the Gaps." This term is used to designate the way that religious people simply plug "god" (or the supernatural or "magick") into the gaps in our current understanding of the universe. As science continues to discover more about the universe, the gaps become smaller and smaller, and the role of "god" (or the supernatural or magick) becomes less and less, until it's almost nothing at all.

So, for example, a long time ago, our understanding of the universe was pretty poor. We had huge gaps in our knowledge, and so the god claims were grandiose indeed. Gods were huge anthropomorphic creatures who literally hurled lightning bolts, afflicted mankind with plagues, and shook volcanoes with their rage. Gradually, humanity learned that all of those things have completely natural causes. We filled in those gaps in our knowledge, and so the supernatural was forced to retreat. Religious types then claimed that God -- a much more abstract kind of God -- acts through natural forces, even though these forces work in completely mechanical ways that show no sign of intelligent intervention.

The more we learn, the more abstract, amorphous, and indistinguishable from nothing at all God becomes. If you read a book on modern theology, you'll find theologians -- who tend to be fairly well educated and understand that humanity knows quite a bit about the universe --talking about "God" in such abstract and vague terms that it pretty much amounts to nothing at all. God, they'll say, "is the ground of being, in which is rooted the essence of isness, in which we each live and move," or something along those lines. Pretty much entirely nothing: the gaps in our knowledge are small enough that there's just no room for gods or other supernatural creatures anymore.

Compare that with the way that supernatural claims retreat once people start pointing out the lack of evidence for them. I had an interesting example of this on my blog, where I pointed to a group of Thelemites claiming that an iPhone app demonstrated "objective proof" of the existence of something supernatural. When I called them out on it, two of them popped up in my blog, and in the discussion that followed, their claim retreated so far from the original claim, that they (or at least one of them) eventually ended up arguing, as I correctly paraphrased in the comments, "there’s some super-remote, incredibly slim chance that the ritual could have possibly worked, although not in the way that its practitioner claimed, and, in the long run, the whole story is probably part of the ‘not true bits’ of existence.”


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 6:19 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
What is the basis that I've concluded that my comments to Johnny worK?

I've DONE it.

I don't doubt that you've DONE it (what's with the gratuitous use of all caps, anyway?). I'm asking what convinces you that it works. Something must have HAPPENED after you DID IT, right? And you must have decided that you had sufficient evidence to think that the process CAUSED that "something."

So what was the evidence? How did you determine that the process caused something to happen?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 7:00 am  
"Los" wrote:
It's interesting to observe that when one pins down believers and tries to get them to articulate exactly what it is that they believe, the claims tend to retreat farther and farther from the grand statements that often start the discussion. At the start of this thread, for example, people were acting as if it were possible to "charge" a ring with magical power, as if some kind of real change were happening in the ring...and now, we're getting this weak stuff along the lines of, "well, maybe it just kinda changes how a person perceives the ring."

It's all very predictable, though. Once you grant that concession, that yeah, maybe it can kinda sorta change how someone thinks about the ring sometimes, it'll be, "see! Magick does work!" and we'll be right back to charging rings again, as if the whole discussion had never happened.

Two other slippery devices have recently raised their ugly head, too. You start off with explaining how you've got to have some kind of reason for believing that your "magick" had some kind of effect, you go over that for a few pages, and you feel like you might be getting somewhere, and then - bang! - someone comes back with "What is the basis that I've concluded that my comments to Johnny worK? I've DONE it", and you're back to square one. It's like trying to talk to one of those automated telephone menus. "Press 9 to hear all the previous options again". It's as if some people think that as long as they wait long enough, they can just go back to repeating their original claim, and you hopefully won't notice, and will believe you've had some kind of productive conversation.

The other is just outrageously blatant evasion. Can't provide evidence for your claims? Well, let's talk about something that doesn't require evidence instead! "There is a place where one does not question 'evidence.' You don't think this way when you fall in love." You don't question evidence when you fall in love, right? Therefore, there's one place where you don't question evidence, therefore magick works, and all my spurious claims are true. Hilarious.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 7:47 am  
"Los" wrote:
the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible (that is, the goal of having as accurate a mental map of reality as possible).

So you run around trying to find claims to accept, calling their conglomerate an 'accurate mental map'? Then when you find a claim not worthy of accepting, you call it skepticism?

Good luck with that approach.

"when faced with 'some-thing' that is definitely not 'some-thing', that 'exists' but definitely 'does not exist', what then?"

Try using your mental map to get you through that one.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 8:59 am  

93!

Well, there is no need to wait for the Collected Diaries (probably everybody here is waiting for them) because it is already written all over his ouevre: For Crowley Supernatural (superhuman/praeterhuman/whatever-you-wanna-call-it) intelligence exists and was in contact with Crowley more than once, and he presents as much evidence for this as possible for him (no iPhones around at that time unfortunately). He never ever revoked that claim. Never. Now you can say he's wrong or he's right and that you find his claims unconvincing. But if you say he's wrong (which you do), then some of the most important events his life are nothing but lies (or fantasies) for you. Therefore you represent not Crowley's Thelema, but your own derivate. Your theories. Your ideas. Is this so hard to understand? It has nothing to do with me or my beliefs, it's just about you are presenting your own ideas, and the only fact you can deliver about Crowley's mind, is your interpretation of it. That's all.

Now you (and HG) can go on with you ridiculous little list.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
12/10/2012 9:15 am  
"Los" wrote:
Now granted, the people who made those grand claims -- namely N.O.X. -- have wisely retreated entirely from the thread when it became clear that they could not support their claims. 

No, Los, you've simply bored him witless. See his last brief post in this thread.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
12/10/2012 9:49 am  

93!

The Pope bequeathed  to me this ring
ere his death ‘twas his sly thinking:
Me to entrap.
His assumptive hope being chiefly that…
I could not quite cope with such a thing
engraved with the symbols of his believing.

You might think I’d think…
I could not use it.
So thought I also….

until I made those symbols  mine,
and changed the force of his design.
Now I proudly wear My ring
unto his foul schemes great undoing.

I think you know, JohnnyScience, 
that by a method of your choosing, You
can make that which is “Inimical” to Your Will, concerning  the ring,
SERVE Your Purpose.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 2:51 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
For Crowley Supernatural (superhuman/praeterhuman/whatever-you-wanna-call-it) intelligence exists and was in contact with Crowley more than once, and he presents as much evidence for this as possible for him (no iPhones around at that time unfortunately). He never ever revoked that claim. Never.

So what? He never revoked his love of mountaineering, or chess, or smoking pipes. However, like talking to spacemen, none of these things have anything to do with Thelema, the scope of which he helpfully defined for us in Liber II, amongst other places, so we know what he was talking about.

If you want to believe that contacting spacemen is "part of Thelema", then that's your business, but don't go around trying to tell us it's "Crowley's Thelema" when we have his own words telling us that you're wrong.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 4:13 pm  

93, Erwin!

"Erwin" wrote:
don't go around trying to tell us it's "Crowley's Thelema" when we have his own words telling us that you're wrong.

No, YOU just go around telling everybody that the guy who synthesized/compiled the sytem of Thelema, the core text of which was dictated to said guy by a superhuman intelligence and whose main authority was granted him by said superhuman intelligence, would have no chance to join "your club" which claims to teach what said guy "was talking about".

On the other hand, if "contacting spacemen" is NOT "part of Thelema", why do you bother to come to a site which deals with the works of a famous spacemen-contacter and insult everybody (except your fan-boys)? Have you been hurt by an "evil occultist"? Can you clear this one up for me?

One earnest question: Is the belief in supernatural powers incompatible with (what you think) Thelema (is)?

Please answer.

Another earnest question: If your answer to the last question is no, why is it you come here? Really, why then?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 7
Share: